I have an answer to his question…

…but E.J. isn’t going to like it, not one little bit:

Since when is 90 percent of the nation not “the Real America”?

When “90 percent of the nation” is defined by the media and the victim-disarmament lobby (but I repeat myself), of course. I counted on him to throw a fit over this, and I was not disappointed.

And Mark Begich was right. It is dangerous to make policy in emotionally charged moments. E.J. Dionne can whine about it being a rational response all he wants, and as loud as he wants, but that doesn’t make him any less wrong. And Dionne might think the ball’s in the victim-disarmament lobby’s court, but then he’s thought that all along and he’s already been proven wrong.

Seriously, they ought to just start calling him Baghdad Gene. “Pay no attention to all those gun owners calling their congressmen!”



3 Responses to “I have an answer to his question…”

  1. Invisible Mikey Says:

    Well, I think the over-emotional response was just as much by gun owners saying stupid stuff like “We’ll go to WAR over this!”. The proposed minimal expansion of background checks wasn’t even universal. It was a sensible, measured proposal. It was defeated unfairly, by disinformation, and because Congress is too beholden to its big campaign contributors. Most people did and do want this. No matter how you argue the rightness or wrongness of it, that remains fact.

  2. southtexaspistolero Says:

    Most people did and do want this. No matter how you argue the rightness or wrongness of it, that remains fact.

    No. No it does not. If most people wanted this they would have called their congressmen and demanded that they vote for it. Either they didn’t want it or they didn’t want it bad enough, and the latter is , practically speaking, the same thing as not wanting it.

  3. 3boxesofbs Says:

    Invisible Mikey,

    If ‘90% of the people’ want you to have a background check each and every time you open your mouth or write something; would you make the same argument?

    Our rights are not up for a vote. Why is that hard for you to understand?

    And let’s look at your sensible measured proposal — as you say it wasn’t even universal; so how was it going to stop criminals from getting firearms?
    Would a family member every buy a gun for a criminal ?
    Would a known associate (or whatever the phrasing was) every buy a gun for a known criminal?

    The answer is “of course yes” — so if straw purchasing would still occur; what is the value in the law….more importantly what is the value in abridging my liberty in order to try to ineffectively stop a criminal?

    And if “90% of the people” want background checks — they can do them themselves. There are many pay sites on the internet where one can conduct a background search.

    Can to publish your name and date of birth? I’ll show you how much information is available 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: